Cornyn proposal would deny federal funds to any local government taking land for private use

WASHINGTON - A Supreme Court decision allowing governments to seize property for economic development purposes has prompted an angry reaction in Congress, where lawmakers in both the House and Senate promoted legislation Thursday designed to mitigate the impact of the ruling.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, proposed legislation that would bar the federal government and local and state governments who receive federal funds from taking property for economic development use.

"The protection of homes, small businesses, and other property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's founders," according to a letter written by Cornyn and Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. The letter was sent to colleagues asking for co-sponsors for the legislation.

DeLay backed similar bill

"This is a horrible decision by the Supreme Court," said DeLay, who said that the ruling is an example of why Congress should exert more oversight of the judiciary.

"This Congress is not going to just idly sit by and let an unaccountable judiciary make these kind of decisions without taking our responsibility and our duty given to us by the Constitution to be a check on the judiciary," said DeLay.

On Thursday, the House took an initial step toward trying to curb the use of federal money whenever a government seizes property for private development. Lawmakers by a 231-189 margin approved an amendment to a spending bill that would bar the use of federal funds to improve or construct infrastructure on such lands.

In Texas, state lawmakers hurried to sponsor other proposals designed to blunt the effects of the court ruling.

Resolution for amendment

Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, introduced a resolution calling for an amendment to the state Constitution that would prevent land seizures for primarily economic developmental purposes, and some 100 legislators signed up as co-sponsors. In the upper chamber, state Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, filed an identical resolution. State Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, filed a separate resolution.

DeLay cited the case of Freeport as an example of municipalities that plan on taking property for economic development purposes.

But Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said the bills introduced Thursday in the House and Senate would not affect the city's efforts to seize three tracts of land along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for an $8 million private marina.

The rallying point

In a 5-4 decision earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled the city of New London, Conn., could use eminent domain proceedings to replace an aging residential neighborhood with a privately constructed development of offices, a hotel and a pedestrian river walkway. Municipal officials said it would increase the tax base.

The owners of the 15 homes the city planned to seize challenged the city unsuccessfully in court.

The case has become a rallying point for conservatives, who have traditionally sought to protect property rights.

But the legislation to curb eminent domain proceedings has also drawn a number of Democrats, such as Rep. Gene Green of Houston, who represent inner-city constituencies fearful of government seizure.